Tenure Elongation: A Judicial Heist
By Sam Onimisi
It is no longer news that the governorship election did not hold in five states – courtesy of a judicial ruling extending the tenure of the governors’ of those states by one year – with effect from the date they were sworn in after the re-run elections. Not being a lawyer does not deprive citizens of common sense based on morality. The legal doctrine which says that you cannot put something on nothing was the pivot of the tenure elongation. However, if the issues canvassed by parties to the suit are scrutinized, it would not only show something, it would in fact throw up a lot of things upon which some things can be put. Whether the parties canvassed these things in the course of argument is not the issue here. Need we remind ourselves of the cases?
Gubernatorial elections were nullified in five states in which re-run elections were ordered by the various Electoral Petition Tribunals. The nullification was on the ground of declaration of false results by the electoral umpire, the Independent National Electoral commission, INEC. Judgment was entered against the beneficiaries of the electoral robbery, thus necessitating re-run elections. I think that a person convicted of crime ought to be treated as a criminal and punished as such, and I believe that election nullification is not enough penalties for electoral fraud. To allow the same contestants to stand for re-run election is an abetment of crime, in my lay opinion. Conviction ought to have led to their disqualification as candidates for the re-run race. If it is argued that the umpire and not the candidate were convicted by the Tribunals, then the INEC ought not to have been allowed to handle the re-run elections. Perhaps this is one lacuna in the Electoral Act which needs to be amended. An umpire convicted of fraud but permitted to play the same role again between the same set of contestants, will repeat the fraud if only to justify the first fraud – and that was what happened. This is especially so if the result of the first contest was procured by bribe. The Professor Maurice Iwu – led INEC was notorious for all manners of electoral malfeasance which includes election re-run robberies.
Of recent, there were allegations that the judgments which returned the ACN candidates in Osun and Ekiti States were procured by the party although no one has challenged it in a superior court. The Election Appeal Tribunals were variously accused of bribery and corruption; to the extent that the allegation has not been proved, the courts may go scot-free. However, when shall we know the extent of the infidelity or probity of our Judiciary? It is rumoured that the five governors got the courts to compromise justice for the tenure elongation. Is there any way of proving this allegation at any place other than in the court of law? If the Electoral Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal are guilty of trading away justice for pecuniary gains, then the Courts are a significant part of the rot that permeates the democratic process and, a major contributor to the violence in the polity of the country. How then do we reform or change the Courts for justice to prevail?
When the Courts or Tribunals nullified the elections, they ordered that re-run election be held within a period of three months or so. In the interim, the Speakers of the Governors’ Political Party stepped in as Acting Governors and handed over to the Governors after re-run election. It means that the Party was never out of power and did not suffer the consequences of the fraud it committed for or through its candidates. The persons of the Governor merely relocated from the State House while directing the acting Governors to spend state funds for re-run campaigns. It is a matter of conjecture if the governors were not paid their salaries and allowances for those three months – since no one will admit for now. When the elections were cancelled, the courts failed to make any pronouncement or orders on the action taken by the governors during their illegal tenure in power.
To assume that their actions were null and void while their appointees and enactments remain in force to their benefits is to make a foul mockery of the law, the courts and morality. Now, having lost nothing during the period of the acting governor, how were the governors punished for their electoral crime?
Why then must they be rewarded for the crime they committed by way of tenure elongation? What lessons has the Court taught culprits if those who deserve punishment were rewarded with one year extra mandate without election? How could the Courts extend an elective tenure beyond and above the three months during which the governors were out of power? If the tenure must be extended, should it have been more than the period of the interim regime? If one cannot put something on nothing, why should the Courts reward criminals with extension which they neither asked for nor deserved? Is it not reasonable or logical to posit that the tenure extension was actually procured or handsomely paid for? In whose interest and for what loss was their tenure extended? If there are saints, can any be found in the Nigerian Judiciary, given these macabre decisions? Or is the tenure extension judgment the product of amazing grace?
It is a pity that in the practice of partisan politics, leaders often ignore the mote in their own eyes while making noise about the plank in the opponents’ eyes. While the ACN enjoys the victory obtained allegedly by bribe from the courts, the PDP basks in the joy of tenure elongation of five of its governor, also allegedly procured by bribe. If the judiciary dispense justice for bribe, the electoral umpire awards poll results for bribe and nobody or agency could do anything to correct it, it is doubtful if such a system will lead anywhere but perdition. In the absence of a just and fair arbiter, no society can live in peace and so, the gravity of Judicial abracadabra has imports capable of destroying both the briber and the bribee, and worse still, the victims who have actually been defrauded by the procured judgments – the electorate. A politico-judicial conspiracy is a deadly poison in a socio-political environment already riddled with corruption, suspicion, tension and hopelessness.
Now, the most painful aspect of this judicial heist of tenure extension is the prolonged suffering of the electorate who had some faint hope that the nightmare represented by the governors would be terminated this year. Were the governors to be performers or true reformers, their services will be missed by all if they are made to go prematurely. In fact, if they had actually contributed to development, one will wish that the law be amended to grant them a third or fourth term as the case may be. However, most of them are non-performers and agents of destruction to other ethnic groups in their states over whom they otherwise have no right to rule, but for the useless structure and system of government imposed on us by the military.
The states as they are and ruled by the governors have been reduced to their personal estates or the inheritance of their ethnic groups and now that the judiciary has joined the harlotry, the states will be further weakened by political rapists who, at the end of their regime in 2012, would have despoiled the people beyond redemption. In the circumstance, I have a word of advice for the five governors: utilize the awarded or undeserved one year extension to undo the negative actions you have taken or correct the errors you have inadvertently or premeditatedly committed in the last eight years. Let the ninth year be a year of restoration, a year of rectitude and of repentance, otherwise the collective curse of the electorate will sentence them to unending misery which the ultimate Judge of all will confirm, affirm and enforce without appeal.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Candidate: An Incurable Optimist
The Candidate: An Incurable Optimist
By Sam Onimisi
It appears that candidates of elective offices are often so self-confident either of their suitability, competence or acceptability that they usually give no thought or room for failure. Of a truth, there is always an advantage in self-confidence or courage in life’s endeavors.
You don’t embark on ventures with an air of fear, inferiority or doubt and expect to prevail. Since everyone is poised to win and because only one could be declared a winner, there is always a tsunami when an incurable optimist loses a contest. Which suggests that there is the need for a balance in the quest for and the expectation of victory – bearing in mind those political competitors do not often go into contest with equal strength? There is always a difference, an advantage and some elements of luck which one candidate has over and above the other – but these are often hidden to those whose self-confidence is unreasonably high. And that is why when they lose, they hardly believe or accept their defeat.
The consequence is the violence, litigation and fractious reaction often associated with politics, thus making it look like a dirty game. The truth is that we always bring personal character and attributes into politics and we play it according to our values, in line with our self or group interests, with little or no regard for the interest of others. Where interests are opposed, conflict is bound to occur and where there is no prior agreement as to the rule of engagement, the result is more often than not, an open-ended tussle and a present continuous brouhaha. As it is with individuals, so it is with groups and just as personal characters reflect in politics, so group character exhibit itself in politics. Although government makes all the rules or laws to regulate inter-personal and inter-group relationship and competition, very often the individual or group character creeps in to distort and upset rules of engagement. There are groups who feel rightly or wrongly that they have absolute or divine right to rule over others. Some other groups think that they have more knowledge and so, have the right to rule more than others. Yet, there are groups who feel that it is their turn to rule and others must concede this and await their turns. Everyone and every side believe they have some rights that is superior to the rights of the others. And these claims are bound to clash except that only one competitor will emerge as winner at a time.
Where all sides to a claim is not ready to accept legitimate defeat, then there can be no peace or amity between and among the highly heterogeneous Nigerian society or any society for that matter. This is where the neutrality or impartiality of the electoral umpire, the judge and those with authority to do justice and ensure fairness and equity holds the key to peace. Once they appear to have compromised, and coupled with the unreasonably high optimism of the competitors to win by all means, what we see is cataclysm. That is why public institutions such as the judiciary, the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be led by men and women of impeccable character and reputation.
It is also necessary that the criteria for recruitment into these institutions must be of a high standard. But do we adhere to any rule here?
An instance of the incurable optimist is a chieftain of a Party with a popular presidential candidate who, long before the election, said that if his principal wins the race by 79% per cent, then he would cry wolf as he would know that rigging had taken place. Here is one who believes that the race has been won ever before it took place. What if at the end of the game, his principal lost? He would be beside himself in blind rage and will spread the rage, giving unsuspecting members of the public, invented reasons why they must reject the result. With such a bunch of fanatical supporters, electoral violence is not unexpected.
Not everyone will agree with my own tag on the rabble-rouser as some would call him; infact, some people are wondering why he has not been arrested for stirring up violence in advance by his incendiary speech. No matters how you wish to be victorious and regardless of your optimism, self-control and regard for the feeling of others are needed for a stable polity. Again, our freedom of speech and the right to our opinion stops where that of others begin, and since no one possess the monopoly of violence, self censorship is a pre-requisite to political leadership.
It is often said that every party or candidate rigs election in their area of relative strength. Whether this opinion makes sense or not is for rational minds to say. One would have thought that rigging takes place at the area of possible weak voters support and not where one is strong. How often do parties and candidates exaggerate their strength or support base? An optimist, especially the incurable type is prone to over exaggeration or hyperbole. It is like telling and repeating a lie and expecting it to turn out to be truth and when it doesn’t, you blame and quarrel with everyone except yourself. I know of an official of a party who, instead of concentrating on the strategies and tactics that could fetch his party victory, dwells on perceived rigging devices of his opponents. Taking advantage of his media reach, he reels out incredible details of what his “enemies” are planning to do and how they would do it. If by happenstance any of his imaginary allegations or what looks like it happens, then he would say “ I told you so” Many a times, the result of such wolf-cry is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not saying that one cannot guestimate the moves of his opponent or predicts what he/she can do, based on one’s knowledge of the opponent. To some extent, it is possible, but in politics, nothing is absolutely sure! Just as it is impossible to read the thoughts of a person on his/her face, so it is to predict accurately the next move of your opponent. An ardent supporter today may turn out to be a vicious opponent the next day.
In politics, personal choice and interest and then group interest determines who, what and when to support or oppose. Those who are egocentric have no qualms shifting base, moving from one party to the other as it suits his/her personal interest or ambition. Even the most public-spirited politician may defect to another party when he discovers that his ideals have been neglected or jettison by his party or candidate. It is not a crime to move or change platform except when it is done in bad faith, although most often and regrettably, the Nigerian political terrain is foul with bad faith due to series of false starts and critical but negative interventions. We have heard, seen and felt the heat generated by candidates’ exhibition of over-confidence or assumption in the just concluded Parliamentary and Presidential elections where the stakes are high but localized. The contest demystified parties and candidates who thought and behaved as if they were the ones we are dying to have as our rulers. Now that winners and losers have emerged in what looked like a fair contest, the parties and their candidates could now do a post-mortem to know how and why they lost or won.
Again by the time you would be reading this piece, the Governorship election would have been held, won by some and lost by others as decided by the electorate. This is one poll in which the stake is the highest and over which much altercation had been experienced as to who had the right to contest or not. Each contestant had expended much of their resources; show cased their personalities and advertised their programmes, just to convince us of their desirability or capability. While it lasted, the campaign threatened to tear us apart, and a few bombs were thrown here and there just to scare the opponent(s) out of the race or to scare voters from the polling booths, to enhance some rigging experiments and devices. In all, heavens is yet to fall and may never fall to appease the presumptions of the incurable optimism of candidates or the candor with which campaigners went about their binge with reckless abandon.
The post election violence in some states of the Federation is as unfortunate as it is regrettable and unnecessary. Those with the mindset that no election would ever be free or fair may have decided to react in a certain manner if they and their ward lost in the contest. It is also a possibility that zoning or lack of it may have influenced rioters to act the way they did. Until proved otherwise, the 2011 general election was apparently free, fair and credible. Only verified and proved malpractices may reverse the result announced. Violence cannot reverse the mandate that has been freely given. The best reaction of the losers could well be a determination to put winners on their toes – democratically and make them attend to the needs of the electorate. Violence makes electoral loss even more painful and no more!
By Sam Onimisi
It appears that candidates of elective offices are often so self-confident either of their suitability, competence or acceptability that they usually give no thought or room for failure. Of a truth, there is always an advantage in self-confidence or courage in life’s endeavors.
You don’t embark on ventures with an air of fear, inferiority or doubt and expect to prevail. Since everyone is poised to win and because only one could be declared a winner, there is always a tsunami when an incurable optimist loses a contest. Which suggests that there is the need for a balance in the quest for and the expectation of victory – bearing in mind those political competitors do not often go into contest with equal strength? There is always a difference, an advantage and some elements of luck which one candidate has over and above the other – but these are often hidden to those whose self-confidence is unreasonably high. And that is why when they lose, they hardly believe or accept their defeat.
The consequence is the violence, litigation and fractious reaction often associated with politics, thus making it look like a dirty game. The truth is that we always bring personal character and attributes into politics and we play it according to our values, in line with our self or group interests, with little or no regard for the interest of others. Where interests are opposed, conflict is bound to occur and where there is no prior agreement as to the rule of engagement, the result is more often than not, an open-ended tussle and a present continuous brouhaha. As it is with individuals, so it is with groups and just as personal characters reflect in politics, so group character exhibit itself in politics. Although government makes all the rules or laws to regulate inter-personal and inter-group relationship and competition, very often the individual or group character creeps in to distort and upset rules of engagement. There are groups who feel rightly or wrongly that they have absolute or divine right to rule over others. Some other groups think that they have more knowledge and so, have the right to rule more than others. Yet, there are groups who feel that it is their turn to rule and others must concede this and await their turns. Everyone and every side believe they have some rights that is superior to the rights of the others. And these claims are bound to clash except that only one competitor will emerge as winner at a time.
Where all sides to a claim is not ready to accept legitimate defeat, then there can be no peace or amity between and among the highly heterogeneous Nigerian society or any society for that matter. This is where the neutrality or impartiality of the electoral umpire, the judge and those with authority to do justice and ensure fairness and equity holds the key to peace. Once they appear to have compromised, and coupled with the unreasonably high optimism of the competitors to win by all means, what we see is cataclysm. That is why public institutions such as the judiciary, the police and the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) must be led by men and women of impeccable character and reputation.
It is also necessary that the criteria for recruitment into these institutions must be of a high standard. But do we adhere to any rule here?
An instance of the incurable optimist is a chieftain of a Party with a popular presidential candidate who, long before the election, said that if his principal wins the race by 79% per cent, then he would cry wolf as he would know that rigging had taken place. Here is one who believes that the race has been won ever before it took place. What if at the end of the game, his principal lost? He would be beside himself in blind rage and will spread the rage, giving unsuspecting members of the public, invented reasons why they must reject the result. With such a bunch of fanatical supporters, electoral violence is not unexpected.
Not everyone will agree with my own tag on the rabble-rouser as some would call him; infact, some people are wondering why he has not been arrested for stirring up violence in advance by his incendiary speech. No matters how you wish to be victorious and regardless of your optimism, self-control and regard for the feeling of others are needed for a stable polity. Again, our freedom of speech and the right to our opinion stops where that of others begin, and since no one possess the monopoly of violence, self censorship is a pre-requisite to political leadership.
It is often said that every party or candidate rigs election in their area of relative strength. Whether this opinion makes sense or not is for rational minds to say. One would have thought that rigging takes place at the area of possible weak voters support and not where one is strong. How often do parties and candidates exaggerate their strength or support base? An optimist, especially the incurable type is prone to over exaggeration or hyperbole. It is like telling and repeating a lie and expecting it to turn out to be truth and when it doesn’t, you blame and quarrel with everyone except yourself. I know of an official of a party who, instead of concentrating on the strategies and tactics that could fetch his party victory, dwells on perceived rigging devices of his opponents. Taking advantage of his media reach, he reels out incredible details of what his “enemies” are planning to do and how they would do it. If by happenstance any of his imaginary allegations or what looks like it happens, then he would say “ I told you so” Many a times, the result of such wolf-cry is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This is not saying that one cannot guestimate the moves of his opponent or predicts what he/she can do, based on one’s knowledge of the opponent. To some extent, it is possible, but in politics, nothing is absolutely sure! Just as it is impossible to read the thoughts of a person on his/her face, so it is to predict accurately the next move of your opponent. An ardent supporter today may turn out to be a vicious opponent the next day.
In politics, personal choice and interest and then group interest determines who, what and when to support or oppose. Those who are egocentric have no qualms shifting base, moving from one party to the other as it suits his/her personal interest or ambition. Even the most public-spirited politician may defect to another party when he discovers that his ideals have been neglected or jettison by his party or candidate. It is not a crime to move or change platform except when it is done in bad faith, although most often and regrettably, the Nigerian political terrain is foul with bad faith due to series of false starts and critical but negative interventions. We have heard, seen and felt the heat generated by candidates’ exhibition of over-confidence or assumption in the just concluded Parliamentary and Presidential elections where the stakes are high but localized. The contest demystified parties and candidates who thought and behaved as if they were the ones we are dying to have as our rulers. Now that winners and losers have emerged in what looked like a fair contest, the parties and their candidates could now do a post-mortem to know how and why they lost or won.
Again by the time you would be reading this piece, the Governorship election would have been held, won by some and lost by others as decided by the electorate. This is one poll in which the stake is the highest and over which much altercation had been experienced as to who had the right to contest or not. Each contestant had expended much of their resources; show cased their personalities and advertised their programmes, just to convince us of their desirability or capability. While it lasted, the campaign threatened to tear us apart, and a few bombs were thrown here and there just to scare the opponent(s) out of the race or to scare voters from the polling booths, to enhance some rigging experiments and devices. In all, heavens is yet to fall and may never fall to appease the presumptions of the incurable optimism of candidates or the candor with which campaigners went about their binge with reckless abandon.
The post election violence in some states of the Federation is as unfortunate as it is regrettable and unnecessary. Those with the mindset that no election would ever be free or fair may have decided to react in a certain manner if they and their ward lost in the contest. It is also a possibility that zoning or lack of it may have influenced rioters to act the way they did. Until proved otherwise, the 2011 general election was apparently free, fair and credible. Only verified and proved malpractices may reverse the result announced. Violence cannot reverse the mandate that has been freely given. The best reaction of the losers could well be a determination to put winners on their toes – democratically and make them attend to the needs of the electorate. Violence makes electoral loss even more painful and no more!
Friday, April 8, 2011
One Flaw Too Many
One Flaw Too Many
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
One Flaw Too Many
One Flaw Too Many
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
By Sam Onimisi
If the 2011 general election had not been postponed from January to April 2011 to enable the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) adequate time to prepare for a flawless exercise, one could have taken the botched legislative election lightly.
What happened to all the plans and strategies that the INEC and the government had put in place? Why did election materials never get to the polling booths in most of the States? Who is responsible for the delay beyond the international dimension Professor Jega alluded to? How sure are we that there has not been an internal sabotage by some mischievous INEC Staff? Professor Jega is so sure that between the 2nd and 4th of April 2011, all materials would have gotten to all constituencies for a flawless exercise and by the time you are reading this piece, the Parliamentary and Presidential election would have been held.
The reason given for the postponement was there and latent and a perceptive electoral body would have taken a preventive or pro-active step and could have announced the postponement ahead of the scheduled date. The psychological sense of failure and doubt would have been avoided. Now, there is a general fear that INEC is so inept that subsequent elections may suffer the same if not worse fate. Stakeholders such as political parties, candidates and the Nigerian people are apprehensive that the 2011 elections may be worse than the do-or-die version of 2007. A lot have been lost, in terms of money and payment of ad-hoc electoral staff that must be paid regardless of the postponement or non-performance of their duties. The Security Agencies had deployed their men and materials and everyone knows that movement of men and equipment costs money which is now wasted as the objective was not achieved. The numerous observers and monitors from home and abroad would stay extra days with additional expenses that were not envisaged. The turn-out of voters is bound to be affected as enthusiasm waned and cynism takes over. These and much more are the consequences of the botched election for which INEC must be held responsible. I was writing the last sentence when the news broke that INEC has again shifted the election to Saturday, April 9, 2011. This time, Professor Jega hinged the postponement on the need to get electoral materials to the voting centres, the need to reprint some ballot papers in which names of certain parties, their logos and candidates were earlier omitted, and this happened in several states.
In a country where no one appear to be responsible for anything and in which the buck is passed around and stops nowhere, perhaps Professor Jega needs to be appreciated for publicly admitting the failure of INEC and apologizing to the Nation. However, we cannot immediately quantify the psychological and financial loss to the country as a result of this double postponement. The political parties are already counting their losses in terms of hundreds of millions in party agents’ fees and mobilization or demobilization of personnel. And now, there is the genuine fear that in the few states where election took place on 2 April, millions of ballot papers have already been exposed and susceptible to duplication by unscrupulous elements bent on their election rigging enterprises. Moreover, voters became agitated and were already suspecting foul play by the ruling party and there were some fracas and fisticuffs across the country, thereby increasing the palpable tension enveloping the election. How this development will affect subsequent elections can only be imagined. All these against the background of the general enthusiasm of the people on the appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega, based on his past track records, and his promises of fidelity and efficiency to the contrary.
On two or three occasions, the political parties have had to bail out Prof. Jega and gave him support to enable him achieve his objectives. First, when he needed time to assess the extent of rot in INEC to enable him make adequate preparation for elections, thus the election was shifted from January to April. Again, when he needed more money for the voters registration exercise, the parties rallied to his aid and he was granted what he asked for. Yet again, the political parties through the Inter-Party Advisory Council (IPAC) spearheaded the move to help INEC shift the pre-emptory date of April 4 to April 9 for the Parliamentary election. And yet , political parties are regarded as the greatest headache of INEC and are treated with contempt, whereas these parties are the raison deter for the existence of INEC. There have been complaints against Jega’s style of not granting party chairmen access to see him when requested, although he would always apologize but nothing seems to have changed.
It is not healthy to put decision ahead of consultation. In normal circumstances, consultation ought to precede decision. In the case of Jega’s INEC, it is more of the practice to consult after issues have been decided. This makes political parties feel that they are being used to rubberstamp or validate INEC decisions. The bottom line of this piece is the need to ensure that the sanctity and integrity of the 2011 general election is not compromised in any shape or form. Right now, the rating of Prof. Jega in the minds of the people has fallen from what it used to be. Woe betide the general election the day the chief electoral umpire is perceived to be partial, incompetent or compromising. Now that many people are disposed to grant Prof. Jega the benefit of the doubt, it is high time INEC performs its basic duty of conducting a free and fair election.
The consequences of a flawed or fraudulent election are very evident in Ivory Coast, in Zimbabwe and some other countries that are not even as diverse and plural as Nigeria. The pity is that each time reference is made to the fate of those countries, many leaders often retort that Nigeria can never suffer same fate but lack the vision, knowledge or courage to suggest ways and means of avoiding the dooms day. To continue to trudge on the failed path of complacency and the status quo and believe that is how to get the best result is self delusion. Our leaders also believes that Nigeria is God’s favourite, but the Almighty’s favourite are those who does his will and who exerts their God given wisdom, knowledge, strength and skills to attain greater heights. I wonder if it is not even worse with our religious leaders who now preach as if blessing is not tied to righteousness or holiness.
It is time our Pastors and Imams pray for INEC and Prof. Jega and Nigeria over the general election. Given the level of funds and preparation that went into the election so far, it is a tragedy that Jega failed to get it right at the first try. One of the lessons of and reference to history is to avoid its pitfalls. I am not sure if Dr. Abel Goubadia now of blessed memory ever recovered from the 2003 highly rigged general election. Professor Maurice Iwu is currently leaking his self-inflicted injuries resulting from his 2007 wuruwuru general election and several magomago re-run elections between 2008 and 2010. He is right now embroiled in the dirty mire of a social pariah although his unreasonably high hubris will not allow him to admit it. His place in history is assured- at the very nadir of reproach. It is not unlikely that Prof. Iwu made a lot of material and financial gains out of his electoral shenanigans but when the balance sheet of his exploits comes to be made, Iwu would wish he had not been appointed into INEC’s chair.
It is my wish that Prof. Attahiru Jega leaves INEC with his reputation intact as it is my desire that Nigeria should have a clean and respectable election. If the price to pay is the botched election of 2 April and the non-event of 4 April, we should be patient, forgiving but hopeful that the gains may well justify the costs. However, if the reasons given by Jega are different from what actually happened, it means that he has willingly put his hard earned reputation on the line, and he alone will swim in the resultant odium should he fail again. But where will that leave Nigeria?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Will this Question Vanish?
Will this Question Vanish?
By Sam Onimisi
The National Question – what is the national question? Simply put, it is this: what is in Nigeria for the various peoples of Nigeria? In other words, what are the terms, conditions and proviso that regulate the inter-ethnic relations in the country? What is the position of religion in inter ethnic, state or regional and national affairs? Well you may think that these questions are already settled – given the fact that we are operating a Constitution that is purported to have joined us together. The truth is that the questions are not yet answered and will not vanish by wishful thinking. Concomitant to the facts of these unanswered questions is another fact: those who are benefitting unfairly from the present anomie will not want the question to be posed, not to talk of answering them. And know what? The question can only be answered in one of two ways: through a national dialogue also known as national conference or through a civil war, which unfortunately appears to be the choice of those who are averse to the question.
One problem with Nigerians is their memory – they appear to have the shortest memory in the world, a defect that impairs the learning process or from experience. They keep acquiring and wasting experience to their detriment. And yet they are so rich in dogmatic as well as idiomatic expressions from which one could draw from their well of wisdom. Rather than learning from experience, they keep repeating the same mistakes and suffering worse fate with every repeat of past follies. And we are quick to take solace in God and His grace as if God will come down to settle our differences without our input or efforts. Lets take a few examples.
Alhaji Abubakar Bello Masaba, the Nupe octogenarian is now being threatened with death, not for any known crime except for his prodigious Libido which enabled him acquire 86 wives and whose family members are reputed to be about 5000 people. Hear him please. “I did not have any problem with anyone in Bida until 2008, when the Emir asked me to divorce some of my wives and remain with the four that Islam approved of, or be banished from the land”. This old man and members of his family were not only denied registration in the recently concluded voters registration exercise, members of his family were beaten up for attempting to perform their civic duties. Even when he sought and obtained justice from the courts, anonymous callers are threatening to kidnap him. Is it for not running away at the command of the Emir?
The man in question is about 90 years old; he did not acquire his wives at one go. He would have done so over several years and none of them have gone to court to sue for divorce due to neglect of his conjugal duties. All the while, the emir was watching Masaba and did not remind him on time that Islam allowed only four wives for an individual. When the wives were a dozen the emir was still silent until they are now over 7 dozens. Even if the emir didn’t know, the Imams could not claim to be ignorant of the fact and they may have even advised Pa Masaba who obviously failed to heed their advice. Please take note that my concern is not about Pa Masaba’s purity of religion – which may be the concern of the emir. My worry is about the applicable law in Bida, among the Nupe and the position of the law with regards to marriage in Nigeria. Did the Constitution put a limit to the number of wives one could marry? If not, did the Nupe native law and customs puts a ceiling which Pa Masaba contravened? If not, where were the enforcers of the Islamic Law when the man was acquiring his wives? Has every one who has five or more wives been forced to do away with the extra? If not, why Masaba? If he divorced fifty of his wives today, will he be left alone to live in peace? If he agrees to be banished, where is he expected to go? Has the emir created land for him and his family to which they could be sent? All these questions leads naturally to a vexatious question.
Pa Abubakar Bello Masaba is a Nupe man residing at his home town in Bida. The emir is a Fulani man from Good-knows-where, purporting to banish a man from the land of his ancestors. Did the emir derive his powers from Nupe native law and customs, the Nigeria Constitution or the Fulani law? Which one is applicable to Masaba of the three laws? One absolved him of any blame; the other accepted him as committing no crime and these are the two laws known to him. Where does the emir wants 82 wives of Masaba to go if he divorced them? By the patrilineal rule of descent applicable to the Nupe, all Pa Masaba’s offspring are Nupes and are bonafide indigenes of Bida, his home town. The question is; what right has the emir to seek to banish Masaba? This is one of the National Questions yet to be answered.
The governor of Benue State the other day berated the Fulani for killing his people. Hear Governor Gabriel Suswan. “The situation where the Fulani people living in the state brought in mercenaries to burn and kill the people is unacceptable. A fight between brothers should not involve mercenaries. They should stop, leave the state and allow us to settle our problem ourselves”. That was Saturday, February 12, 2011. As if to tell the governor of Benue State that he was talking rubbish, the attacks continued the following day. Again, hear the traditional ruler of Gbange/Tongon in Gwer-West Local Government Area Benue State the Tar Nagi Chief Daniel Abomtse: The Fulani armed herdsmen “first surrounded the village, shot into the air, waited for the harmless villagers who were asleep to come out of their houses. In the ensuing commotion, they shot and killed the people one after another and set their houses and crops ablaze”. Over 300 houses were set ablaze and about N100 million worth of crops and food were burnt; 18 innocent souls were killed in cold blood. Do you know what the governor did?
Governor Gabriel Suswan set up a relief committee to support the displaced; summoned a security meeting and then, reported the attack to the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Saad Abubakar. That was all the governor could do in the circumstances. But why? Because Benue State like the other 35 states has no control over the Nigeria Police in their states. The so-called security meeting could not take far-reaching decision to stop the repeat of future invasion. The Benue State Police Command were probably away to the moon and so did not know when the invasion took place. The duty of the Police is to prevent, detect, combat and arrest crimes and criminals and prosecute them as a deterrent. However the Nigeria Police in Benue States never knew when the Fulani and their hired Chadian mercenaries camped in Gwantashi Island of Nasarawa State; even when they crossed over to Benue State was a mystery to the Nigeria Police. The Police also heard this heinous attack in which 18 people were killed, like every other villager. The uninitiated may be fooled by the usual promise of turning all stones to arrest the killer. Even if any is arrested, Abuja will set them free in no time as usual. Poor Governor Gabriel Suswan could do nothing as the Chief Security Officer of the State and in helplessness, went to Sokoto on his knees to beg the head of the Fulani’s in Nigeria to report the matter.
Now, when the Fulanis were killing, burning and wasting people in Plateau State, the blame was put on the head of the governor, Jonah David Jang and some ignorant ones were calling for his impeachment or a state of emergency. Very soon, and unless something happens to prevent further invasion, Governor Gabriel Suswan may face the same threat; mark you, not for anything he ought to do which he failed to do, but partly because the system and nature of the security arrangement disempowered states from owning their own Police Forces. The three episodes sited in this piece; the Pa Abubakar Masaba case in Bida, Niger State; the Benue State invasion by Fulani herdsmen and their Chadian mercenaries and the long-standing Plateau State raids by the Fulani militia are issues that can only be determined through a national conference. There are other issues and questions here and there, all jostling for answers. Questions such as: whether transnational tribes such as the Fulani or the Hausa or the Yoruba are entitled to dual nationality rights or are superior to smaller ethnic groups? Whether an ethnic group must be ruled by someone from another ethnic group? Whether it is not more sensible for states to have their Police Force?
What are the rights of the various ethnic nationalities in Nigeria? Have they surrendered their rights or identify to a country whose security forces collaborates wit invaders? Whether anybody knows it or not, I love Nigeria as a big country; I love the various ethnic groups and respects their languages and culture. What I don’t like is countries that cannot protect her citizens or nationals, or who discriminate between them by making some sacred cows and others as slaves and which fail to answer the question: what is in Nigeria for you and me?
By Sam Onimisi
The National Question – what is the national question? Simply put, it is this: what is in Nigeria for the various peoples of Nigeria? In other words, what are the terms, conditions and proviso that regulate the inter-ethnic relations in the country? What is the position of religion in inter ethnic, state or regional and national affairs? Well you may think that these questions are already settled – given the fact that we are operating a Constitution that is purported to have joined us together. The truth is that the questions are not yet answered and will not vanish by wishful thinking. Concomitant to the facts of these unanswered questions is another fact: those who are benefitting unfairly from the present anomie will not want the question to be posed, not to talk of answering them. And know what? The question can only be answered in one of two ways: through a national dialogue also known as national conference or through a civil war, which unfortunately appears to be the choice of those who are averse to the question.
One problem with Nigerians is their memory – they appear to have the shortest memory in the world, a defect that impairs the learning process or from experience. They keep acquiring and wasting experience to their detriment. And yet they are so rich in dogmatic as well as idiomatic expressions from which one could draw from their well of wisdom. Rather than learning from experience, they keep repeating the same mistakes and suffering worse fate with every repeat of past follies. And we are quick to take solace in God and His grace as if God will come down to settle our differences without our input or efforts. Lets take a few examples.
Alhaji Abubakar Bello Masaba, the Nupe octogenarian is now being threatened with death, not for any known crime except for his prodigious Libido which enabled him acquire 86 wives and whose family members are reputed to be about 5000 people. Hear him please. “I did not have any problem with anyone in Bida until 2008, when the Emir asked me to divorce some of my wives and remain with the four that Islam approved of, or be banished from the land”. This old man and members of his family were not only denied registration in the recently concluded voters registration exercise, members of his family were beaten up for attempting to perform their civic duties. Even when he sought and obtained justice from the courts, anonymous callers are threatening to kidnap him. Is it for not running away at the command of the Emir?
The man in question is about 90 years old; he did not acquire his wives at one go. He would have done so over several years and none of them have gone to court to sue for divorce due to neglect of his conjugal duties. All the while, the emir was watching Masaba and did not remind him on time that Islam allowed only four wives for an individual. When the wives were a dozen the emir was still silent until they are now over 7 dozens. Even if the emir didn’t know, the Imams could not claim to be ignorant of the fact and they may have even advised Pa Masaba who obviously failed to heed their advice. Please take note that my concern is not about Pa Masaba’s purity of religion – which may be the concern of the emir. My worry is about the applicable law in Bida, among the Nupe and the position of the law with regards to marriage in Nigeria. Did the Constitution put a limit to the number of wives one could marry? If not, did the Nupe native law and customs puts a ceiling which Pa Masaba contravened? If not, where were the enforcers of the Islamic Law when the man was acquiring his wives? Has every one who has five or more wives been forced to do away with the extra? If not, why Masaba? If he divorced fifty of his wives today, will he be left alone to live in peace? If he agrees to be banished, where is he expected to go? Has the emir created land for him and his family to which they could be sent? All these questions leads naturally to a vexatious question.
Pa Abubakar Bello Masaba is a Nupe man residing at his home town in Bida. The emir is a Fulani man from Good-knows-where, purporting to banish a man from the land of his ancestors. Did the emir derive his powers from Nupe native law and customs, the Nigeria Constitution or the Fulani law? Which one is applicable to Masaba of the three laws? One absolved him of any blame; the other accepted him as committing no crime and these are the two laws known to him. Where does the emir wants 82 wives of Masaba to go if he divorced them? By the patrilineal rule of descent applicable to the Nupe, all Pa Masaba’s offspring are Nupes and are bonafide indigenes of Bida, his home town. The question is; what right has the emir to seek to banish Masaba? This is one of the National Questions yet to be answered.
The governor of Benue State the other day berated the Fulani for killing his people. Hear Governor Gabriel Suswan. “The situation where the Fulani people living in the state brought in mercenaries to burn and kill the people is unacceptable. A fight between brothers should not involve mercenaries. They should stop, leave the state and allow us to settle our problem ourselves”. That was Saturday, February 12, 2011. As if to tell the governor of Benue State that he was talking rubbish, the attacks continued the following day. Again, hear the traditional ruler of Gbange/Tongon in Gwer-West Local Government Area Benue State the Tar Nagi Chief Daniel Abomtse: The Fulani armed herdsmen “first surrounded the village, shot into the air, waited for the harmless villagers who were asleep to come out of their houses. In the ensuing commotion, they shot and killed the people one after another and set their houses and crops ablaze”. Over 300 houses were set ablaze and about N100 million worth of crops and food were burnt; 18 innocent souls were killed in cold blood. Do you know what the governor did?
Governor Gabriel Suswan set up a relief committee to support the displaced; summoned a security meeting and then, reported the attack to the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Saad Abubakar. That was all the governor could do in the circumstances. But why? Because Benue State like the other 35 states has no control over the Nigeria Police in their states. The so-called security meeting could not take far-reaching decision to stop the repeat of future invasion. The Benue State Police Command were probably away to the moon and so did not know when the invasion took place. The duty of the Police is to prevent, detect, combat and arrest crimes and criminals and prosecute them as a deterrent. However the Nigeria Police in Benue States never knew when the Fulani and their hired Chadian mercenaries camped in Gwantashi Island of Nasarawa State; even when they crossed over to Benue State was a mystery to the Nigeria Police. The Police also heard this heinous attack in which 18 people were killed, like every other villager. The uninitiated may be fooled by the usual promise of turning all stones to arrest the killer. Even if any is arrested, Abuja will set them free in no time as usual. Poor Governor Gabriel Suswan could do nothing as the Chief Security Officer of the State and in helplessness, went to Sokoto on his knees to beg the head of the Fulani’s in Nigeria to report the matter.
Now, when the Fulanis were killing, burning and wasting people in Plateau State, the blame was put on the head of the governor, Jonah David Jang and some ignorant ones were calling for his impeachment or a state of emergency. Very soon, and unless something happens to prevent further invasion, Governor Gabriel Suswan may face the same threat; mark you, not for anything he ought to do which he failed to do, but partly because the system and nature of the security arrangement disempowered states from owning their own Police Forces. The three episodes sited in this piece; the Pa Abubakar Masaba case in Bida, Niger State; the Benue State invasion by Fulani herdsmen and their Chadian mercenaries and the long-standing Plateau State raids by the Fulani militia are issues that can only be determined through a national conference. There are other issues and questions here and there, all jostling for answers. Questions such as: whether transnational tribes such as the Fulani or the Hausa or the Yoruba are entitled to dual nationality rights or are superior to smaller ethnic groups? Whether an ethnic group must be ruled by someone from another ethnic group? Whether it is not more sensible for states to have their Police Force?
What are the rights of the various ethnic nationalities in Nigeria? Have they surrendered their rights or identify to a country whose security forces collaborates wit invaders? Whether anybody knows it or not, I love Nigeria as a big country; I love the various ethnic groups and respects their languages and culture. What I don’t like is countries that cannot protect her citizens or nationals, or who discriminate between them by making some sacred cows and others as slaves and which fail to answer the question: what is in Nigeria for you and me?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Sanusi & Sharia @ CBN. Com
Sanusi & Sharia @ CBN. Com
By Sam Onimisi
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is now a household name in Nigeria, not just because of his signature emblazoned in the country’s currency, but more for his controversial reform in the banking sector of the economy since his appointment over two years ago. He appears to enjoy the eye of the storm and relish in needless controversy. Last month, the Central Bank Governor issued a guideline titled “FRAMEWORK FOR THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF INSTITUTIONS OFFERING NON-INTEREST FINANCIAL SERVICES IN NIGERIA”. It took me time and some efforts to obtain this guideline and I spent some time studying the document upon which I intend to make some comments. Before then, I want to be sure that my readers have rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter, as most of them may not have taken time to read the guideline as I did. Now, lets go.
Before Western or Arabic civilization, the African had what may be called a non-interest banking system through which financial transactions are conducted. This is today conveniently called Non-Interest Financial Institutions, NIFI. It is a practice that abhors interest on lending as its main feature; a system, which makes profit and loss a joint liability of the ‘bank’ and its customers. Before the advent of modern banking, there were people who were charging very high interest rate known as usury and so, at the advent of Judaism which preceded Christianity, the Bible forbade usury in Exodus 22:25, a prohibition repeated in Leviticus 25: 36. This serves to validate the African practice of non-interest banking through esusu, opa, ajo and adashi by various Nigerian ethnic nationalities. This is the periodical monetary contributions of a fixed amount and for a fixed time-period by a group or a number of contributors who takes their own turn as beneficiaries. It has no interest and losses are shared between the contributors and the managers of the fund. Therefore, non-interest financial institutions are not new in Nigeria, as it has come a long way from time immemorial. Even when the system developed and has its interest charging elements, people also took advantage of it as reflected in the Scriptures as captured by Mathew 25:27. While it lasted, both Christians and Muslims took advantage of non-interest banking as well as interest charging banking, inspite of the scriptural prohibition as may be obtained in the Bible and the Quran.
As a matter of fact, the General Ibrahim Babangida administration in an effort to assist the poor, enacted a decree known as the Banking and Other Financial Institutions Act, 1991 i.e., BOFIA. Inspite of his credentials as a devout Muslim who took Nigeria into the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC); or learning from the crisis that surreptitious entry into OIC brought to Nigeria, Babangida prudently ensured that terms such as ‘Christian”, “Islamic” “Central” “Biblical” or “Quranic” are expressly excluded from the name of any bank that would be registered for the purpose of non-interest financial business. However, the recent guideline issued by the Central Bank on the subject speaks of “Sharia Banking” all through the document. In addition, the Governor of CBN also proposed to establish a “CBN Sharia Council” whose function would be to serve as an advisory board to guide the operation of the non-interest banking, which of course, would now be ‘Sharia or Islamic Banking”. This is certainly against the spirit and letters of the BOFIA 1991 as enacted. This Sanusi “innovation” is bound to generate unnecessary agitation and bad blood for reasons stated here under.
Nigeria as a multi-religious polity has no need for state owned or regulated religious banking as it will be patently a discriminative financial system. There is the fear that the collective funds of Nigeria would be used as a weapon of a back door Islamization of the country unless Sanusi will follow it up with the establishment of an Ecclesiastical Banking Council in the CBN. Our experience of the OIC crisis of 1987 and the year 2000 Sharia crisis ought to have cautioned Sanusi against a Sharia Council in the CBN. But since he is bent on foisting it on the country, he must go the whole hog by establishing its Christian and Animist equivalents. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi may not be a purer Muslim than Professor Muhammed Yunus of Pakistan whose ingenuity gave birth to a variant of non-interest banking known as micro-finance banking. Yet, Professor Yunus’ banking invention is much sought-after and is very successful everywhere it is being practiced as conceived – without a religious bias like the one Sanusi is forcing on our throats.
If Sharia Banking is seen as a cure-all solution to the poverty of a segment of Nigerians, this should be left to the private sector and Muslim investors or entrepreneurs who should invest their funds in establishing Sharia-compliant banks devoid of riba and haram-both of which are forbidden in Islam. Moreover, using riba-riddled and haram infested oil money to establish Sharia Banking is nsot a holy way to entrench Islam or help Muslims – especially by a pure Muslim like Mal. Sanusi. If Nigerians were participating in non-interest banking and also in interest charging banking, and have continued to do so from time immemorial up till now, no one must be allowed to draw a discriminatory wedge between them for whatever motive or purpose – using his public office. It is quite legitimate for Sanusi to embark on schemes to impress people of his impeccable Islamic credentials, especially if he is planning his post – CBN future whether as governor or as emir of Kano. However, it must not be at the expense of public peace and inter-religious harmony in the country. At this time when ethno- religious crisis is at its worst in Nigeria, Sanusi’s Sharia Banking must be put on hold or turn over to the Nigerian Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs and the CBN should not be used for a religious Jihad by some other means. I am not in position to judge the value of Sanusi’s reforms in the Banking sector or its beneficial effects on the national economy, but a discerning mind should be able to smell a religious bomb in the process of detonation at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Nigeria can very well operate non-interest financial institutions devoid of religious or sectarian strife, just as we were all taking advantage of high interest banking services. However, if any particular religion prefers something extra, they could go ahead and organize Ecclesiastical, Shango and or Sharia compliant financial institutions-all for themselves –without involving our common wealth. We have had examples of government involvement in religious affairs without rancor, and the first of this was the government-organized pilgrimage to the Holy Lands of Jerusalem and Mecca. The second example is the building of the National Ecumenical Centre for Christians and the National Mosque for the Muslims. These are programmes based on equality of the faiths or government good sense of equity or secularity. Unless we are set to divide the country along religious line, the Central Bank of Nigeria has no mandate, no legal backing and is under no moral burden or compulsion to establish a Sharia Council in CBN – just because Malam Sanusi the Bank’s governor is an authority on Sharia jurisprudence. Afterall, we know that Sanusi was not appointed on the basis of his Sharia credentials but on the fact of his being a qualified economist/banker. Professor Charles Soludo was there before. Infact, we had an older Joseph Sanusi as governor and none of two ever sought to dilute non-interest financial institution with religious sectionalism. A stitch in time saves nine, so says the old adage and I suppose Lamido Sanusi knows this. Let us all be guided by the common good of all.
Whenever the Sahel North suffers from deforestation through desert encroachment, the government always rises to the occasion to ameliorate the effects on the people. Quota system of admission into tertiary institutions was introduced in favour of a particular people whose educational needs called for such a policy funded from the common purse. The Federal Government also established the Nomadic education programme for those whose culture or economic pursuits entails being perpetually on the move and this is being faithfully implemented from the federal budget. Actually, it was Professor Mary Lar, a Christian who invented the nomadic education system, propelled only by the compassion for a segment of Nigerians, and not based on religious sentiments or preference. And of recent, the almajirai system of education was inaugurated to take off the street Nigerian children who choose to go against their religious injunction by begging on the streets – and this also will be funded from the government’s budget – the common purse. Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti was a great pediatrician, who as minister of health introduced a healthcare delivery system for which he earned national honours; he was neither a Christian nor a Muslim, but every Nigerian child became beneficiaries of the programme. Nigeria surely needs a modern system of non-interest financial institutions, a concept, not new to us and for which a previous government enacted a good law. Sanusi should either adhere to this law or forget his sectarian project.
By Sam Onimisi
Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is now a household name in Nigeria, not just because of his signature emblazoned in the country’s currency, but more for his controversial reform in the banking sector of the economy since his appointment over two years ago. He appears to enjoy the eye of the storm and relish in needless controversy. Last month, the Central Bank Governor issued a guideline titled “FRAMEWORK FOR THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF INSTITUTIONS OFFERING NON-INTEREST FINANCIAL SERVICES IN NIGERIA”. It took me time and some efforts to obtain this guideline and I spent some time studying the document upon which I intend to make some comments. Before then, I want to be sure that my readers have rudimentary knowledge of the subject matter, as most of them may not have taken time to read the guideline as I did. Now, lets go.
Before Western or Arabic civilization, the African had what may be called a non-interest banking system through which financial transactions are conducted. This is today conveniently called Non-Interest Financial Institutions, NIFI. It is a practice that abhors interest on lending as its main feature; a system, which makes profit and loss a joint liability of the ‘bank’ and its customers. Before the advent of modern banking, there were people who were charging very high interest rate known as usury and so, at the advent of Judaism which preceded Christianity, the Bible forbade usury in Exodus 22:25, a prohibition repeated in Leviticus 25: 36. This serves to validate the African practice of non-interest banking through esusu, opa, ajo and adashi by various Nigerian ethnic nationalities. This is the periodical monetary contributions of a fixed amount and for a fixed time-period by a group or a number of contributors who takes their own turn as beneficiaries. It has no interest and losses are shared between the contributors and the managers of the fund. Therefore, non-interest financial institutions are not new in Nigeria, as it has come a long way from time immemorial. Even when the system developed and has its interest charging elements, people also took advantage of it as reflected in the Scriptures as captured by Mathew 25:27. While it lasted, both Christians and Muslims took advantage of non-interest banking as well as interest charging banking, inspite of the scriptural prohibition as may be obtained in the Bible and the Quran.
As a matter of fact, the General Ibrahim Babangida administration in an effort to assist the poor, enacted a decree known as the Banking and Other Financial Institutions Act, 1991 i.e., BOFIA. Inspite of his credentials as a devout Muslim who took Nigeria into the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC); or learning from the crisis that surreptitious entry into OIC brought to Nigeria, Babangida prudently ensured that terms such as ‘Christian”, “Islamic” “Central” “Biblical” or “Quranic” are expressly excluded from the name of any bank that would be registered for the purpose of non-interest financial business. However, the recent guideline issued by the Central Bank on the subject speaks of “Sharia Banking” all through the document. In addition, the Governor of CBN also proposed to establish a “CBN Sharia Council” whose function would be to serve as an advisory board to guide the operation of the non-interest banking, which of course, would now be ‘Sharia or Islamic Banking”. This is certainly against the spirit and letters of the BOFIA 1991 as enacted. This Sanusi “innovation” is bound to generate unnecessary agitation and bad blood for reasons stated here under.
Nigeria as a multi-religious polity has no need for state owned or regulated religious banking as it will be patently a discriminative financial system. There is the fear that the collective funds of Nigeria would be used as a weapon of a back door Islamization of the country unless Sanusi will follow it up with the establishment of an Ecclesiastical Banking Council in the CBN. Our experience of the OIC crisis of 1987 and the year 2000 Sharia crisis ought to have cautioned Sanusi against a Sharia Council in the CBN. But since he is bent on foisting it on the country, he must go the whole hog by establishing its Christian and Animist equivalents. Sanusi Lamido Sanusi may not be a purer Muslim than Professor Muhammed Yunus of Pakistan whose ingenuity gave birth to a variant of non-interest banking known as micro-finance banking. Yet, Professor Yunus’ banking invention is much sought-after and is very successful everywhere it is being practiced as conceived – without a religious bias like the one Sanusi is forcing on our throats.
If Sharia Banking is seen as a cure-all solution to the poverty of a segment of Nigerians, this should be left to the private sector and Muslim investors or entrepreneurs who should invest their funds in establishing Sharia-compliant banks devoid of riba and haram-both of which are forbidden in Islam. Moreover, using riba-riddled and haram infested oil money to establish Sharia Banking is nsot a holy way to entrench Islam or help Muslims – especially by a pure Muslim like Mal. Sanusi. If Nigerians were participating in non-interest banking and also in interest charging banking, and have continued to do so from time immemorial up till now, no one must be allowed to draw a discriminatory wedge between them for whatever motive or purpose – using his public office. It is quite legitimate for Sanusi to embark on schemes to impress people of his impeccable Islamic credentials, especially if he is planning his post – CBN future whether as governor or as emir of Kano. However, it must not be at the expense of public peace and inter-religious harmony in the country. At this time when ethno- religious crisis is at its worst in Nigeria, Sanusi’s Sharia Banking must be put on hold or turn over to the Nigerian Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs and the CBN should not be used for a religious Jihad by some other means. I am not in position to judge the value of Sanusi’s reforms in the Banking sector or its beneficial effects on the national economy, but a discerning mind should be able to smell a religious bomb in the process of detonation at the Central Bank of Nigeria.
Nigeria can very well operate non-interest financial institutions devoid of religious or sectarian strife, just as we were all taking advantage of high interest banking services. However, if any particular religion prefers something extra, they could go ahead and organize Ecclesiastical, Shango and or Sharia compliant financial institutions-all for themselves –without involving our common wealth. We have had examples of government involvement in religious affairs without rancor, and the first of this was the government-organized pilgrimage to the Holy Lands of Jerusalem and Mecca. The second example is the building of the National Ecumenical Centre for Christians and the National Mosque for the Muslims. These are programmes based on equality of the faiths or government good sense of equity or secularity. Unless we are set to divide the country along religious line, the Central Bank of Nigeria has no mandate, no legal backing and is under no moral burden or compulsion to establish a Sharia Council in CBN – just because Malam Sanusi the Bank’s governor is an authority on Sharia jurisprudence. Afterall, we know that Sanusi was not appointed on the basis of his Sharia credentials but on the fact of his being a qualified economist/banker. Professor Charles Soludo was there before. Infact, we had an older Joseph Sanusi as governor and none of two ever sought to dilute non-interest financial institution with religious sectionalism. A stitch in time saves nine, so says the old adage and I suppose Lamido Sanusi knows this. Let us all be guided by the common good of all.
Whenever the Sahel North suffers from deforestation through desert encroachment, the government always rises to the occasion to ameliorate the effects on the people. Quota system of admission into tertiary institutions was introduced in favour of a particular people whose educational needs called for such a policy funded from the common purse. The Federal Government also established the Nomadic education programme for those whose culture or economic pursuits entails being perpetually on the move and this is being faithfully implemented from the federal budget. Actually, it was Professor Mary Lar, a Christian who invented the nomadic education system, propelled only by the compassion for a segment of Nigerians, and not based on religious sentiments or preference. And of recent, the almajirai system of education was inaugurated to take off the street Nigerian children who choose to go against their religious injunction by begging on the streets – and this also will be funded from the government’s budget – the common purse. Professor Olikoye Ransome-Kuti was a great pediatrician, who as minister of health introduced a healthcare delivery system for which he earned national honours; he was neither a Christian nor a Muslim, but every Nigerian child became beneficiaries of the programme. Nigeria surely needs a modern system of non-interest financial institutions, a concept, not new to us and for which a previous government enacted a good law. Sanusi should either adhere to this law or forget his sectarian project.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Kogi State: A Political Debauchery at Work
Kogi State: A Political Debauchery at Work
By Sam Onimisi
It is always a nuisance every time I had to write about Kogi State since its creation some twenty years ago. This is because I have had to wade through a labyrinth of detours to arrive at a painful truth, which no one wants to hear – even if they will acknowledge it to themselves in private. That truth is that the state ought not to have been created in the first place! I said so in 1983 when the idea was muted and was being used to weep up sentiments against a so-called Yoruba domination in Kwara State. Writing under the pseudonym of Ohi Ohida, in the now rested Kwara Weekly, I warned the Ebira ethnic nation to concentrate on the on-going development process in Kwara State and desist from the agitation for the creation of what they then pronoun as Kwogi State.
Without sounding immodest, I examined various aspects of the need or otherwise for the state, the agitation, the people, their cultural and sociological differences and came to the conclusion that Kwogi State was a disaster begging to happen. Rather than looking into the issues raised to aid their decision-making process, the political leaders of the day decided to treat me as one who was not interested in the ‘progress’ of the people. As an enemy of the people, I was to be crushed so I could never see their paradise of Kwogi. One of my saddest days was the day the state was created in 1991 and nothing has changed or happened to mitigate my pain at its subsequent anniversaries. I am writing on Kogi State today to mark the fulfillment of my prophecy of 20years ago when at the news of its creation; I told whoever cared to listen that the Ebira should not waste their energy in seeking the governorship of the State for the first 20 years. Now, this is the twentieth year of that prophecy and the state has again nominated some Igalas in the various political parties to replace Gov. Ibrahim Idris, another Igala man. Aside from the Military Administrators, all civilian governors has been Igala, beginning with Abubakar Audu’s six years and now Ibrahim Idris’ eight years. It is obvious that another Igala man will get into the saddle and would remain there for another eight years or so. I do not want to go into the debate over the quality of their governance of the state thus far, for as my people say, it is the disease of the eyes and not of the heart. In other words, any sound mind can see and evaluate developments in the state and judge for himself/ herself if what is obtained is bad, good or very good. I promise to join the debate after reactions to this piece are known.
Meanwhile, there are three issues I like to comment on today and will do so not in any order of sequence or importance. Now, the present geographical space and size called Kogi State is the same area, which used to be known and called Kabba Province, which became defunct in 1967. The question is; why is it that reference is often made to Kabba province with a sense of nostalgia but to its Kogi State version with regret and pain? I am convinced that a realistic answer to this question will unravel the reason and causes of such pains and regrets – and I will attempt to answer the question as best as I could.
When it was Kabba Province, it was administered strictly within the principles of federalism, with the three Divisions (as they were called), i.e. Kabba, Ebira and Igala having autonomous administration, separate treasuries, police and prison services and therefore, were equal in every political sense. Thus, when they meet at Lokoja the Provincial Headquarters, they do so as friends, brothers and people of the same province who are bound together by common aspirations. They compare notes and anywhere there was spectacular progress, the other divisions take cue and a system of healthy competition was engendered. And wherever a serious adverse development took place, other Divisions took preventive actions, to stem the tide. Whenever the three Divisions met at the Regional Capital in Kaduna, they did so in the spirit of people from the same province who had interest in the progress of the area – knowing and conscious of the fact that resource allocation at the regional level were based on the correlating revenues from the various Divisions and so, allocations also would be paid into the Divisional Treasuries for appropriation.
And so, educational institutions were established in the three Divisions into which students from Divisions and infact, from many Provinces in the Region were admitted. Also in School Sports, and at regional sporting events or competition, Kabba Province was always the one to watch as they set the pace both in common entrance examinations and in sports competitions. If any Division was said to be superior, it was based on the standard assessment of the Colonial Officers and grounded on performance in service delivery, increasing revenue income and maintenance of law and order, and on no other puerile criteria.
Now as Kogi State, it is being administered as a unitary system in which resources from all sections are combined in one Treasury. The Police System is also now one and controlled not so much from the state headquarters but from the national capital. In a unitary system, it is winners-take-all, especially in the African setting, and whatever is doled out to those outside is based on how subservient they are. Any wonder that various amorphous groups are formed in the unfortunate Ebira and Kabba areas that often go to Lokoja to pay homage, obeisance and sing the praise of the Igala Lord of the Manor. These groups became handy as ready tools or thugs often used to cause trouble and deal with their own people – especially individuals who are critical of the monopolistic and imperial system of governance. In today’s Kogi State, the Igala is in majority as a single ethnic group, but they have now elevated this fact and clothed it with a lie as if they are more in numerical strength than the combination of the Okun and Ebira, and because the Igala had a headstart as the pioneer governor of the state, every known criteria of resource sharing, whether material, physical and financial allocation are skewed in favour of the Igala. In fact, it is now two-third for the Igala and one third for the rest people of the state – mark you not in productivity but in allocation, making it a compulsion for others to serve and worship them. Over the years, this oppressive and suffocating system has given birth to a sense of persecution among the Ebira and Okun people and much more, among smaller minority ethnic groups in the state; resulting in local wars with their devastating effects on the peace and economy of the rural people who were already impoverished by unfair resource allocation.
However, there is no guarantee that if the Ebira or the Okun were in the same advantage, they would do anything substantially different. This is not because they have the same sense or lack of sense of equity but because of the unitary and winners-take-all system of government. Now if the principle of majority rule is examined, it ought not to be strictly on ethnic ground, which is just one factor out of many. Majority rule means the aggregate number of voters who cast their vote based on their subscription to a doctrine, an ideology and on particular charismatic leadership of a political party. However, the way majority rule is understood and practiced in Kogi State; it translates to Igala rule and nothing more. Ideological beliefs cut across tribes, religion or denominations, and peoples of various ethnic groups buys into it and are bound together by it.
To equate majority rule to the numerical strength of one ethnic group is to give the principle the meaning it does not have, otherwise every ethnic nation becomes the slave of the ethnic group with the slimmest numerical advantage such as the Igala. And this brings us to the most important principle of self determination which is the inalienable human rights of all ethnic nationalities guaranteed by the United Nations Declarations’ on Human and Peoples Rights. If Kogi State and indeed Nigeria is to continue as a state or as a nation state, there must be a system of power devolution or self-rule by ethnic nations. In a true federal system of government and the country must do away with this Unitary System of administration. No one ethnic nation is superior to the other just because of its numerical strength, as other ethnic nations have no need of your number. Your numbers, if they are real or genuine, is valuable only to yourself as others can live their lives without your excess baggage. China’s 1 ½ billion population does not in any way diminish the freedom, power and progress of the United States of America or Russia in the United Nations. The contrasts is the Kabba Province experience – a system of federated Divisions of peoples who had mutual respect and so could share the same visions; not a Kogi State governed as a Unitary estate or kingdom of one hereditary ethnic dynasty.
By Sam Onimisi
It is always a nuisance every time I had to write about Kogi State since its creation some twenty years ago. This is because I have had to wade through a labyrinth of detours to arrive at a painful truth, which no one wants to hear – even if they will acknowledge it to themselves in private. That truth is that the state ought not to have been created in the first place! I said so in 1983 when the idea was muted and was being used to weep up sentiments against a so-called Yoruba domination in Kwara State. Writing under the pseudonym of Ohi Ohida, in the now rested Kwara Weekly, I warned the Ebira ethnic nation to concentrate on the on-going development process in Kwara State and desist from the agitation for the creation of what they then pronoun as Kwogi State.
Without sounding immodest, I examined various aspects of the need or otherwise for the state, the agitation, the people, their cultural and sociological differences and came to the conclusion that Kwogi State was a disaster begging to happen. Rather than looking into the issues raised to aid their decision-making process, the political leaders of the day decided to treat me as one who was not interested in the ‘progress’ of the people. As an enemy of the people, I was to be crushed so I could never see their paradise of Kwogi. One of my saddest days was the day the state was created in 1991 and nothing has changed or happened to mitigate my pain at its subsequent anniversaries. I am writing on Kogi State today to mark the fulfillment of my prophecy of 20years ago when at the news of its creation; I told whoever cared to listen that the Ebira should not waste their energy in seeking the governorship of the State for the first 20 years. Now, this is the twentieth year of that prophecy and the state has again nominated some Igalas in the various political parties to replace Gov. Ibrahim Idris, another Igala man. Aside from the Military Administrators, all civilian governors has been Igala, beginning with Abubakar Audu’s six years and now Ibrahim Idris’ eight years. It is obvious that another Igala man will get into the saddle and would remain there for another eight years or so. I do not want to go into the debate over the quality of their governance of the state thus far, for as my people say, it is the disease of the eyes and not of the heart. In other words, any sound mind can see and evaluate developments in the state and judge for himself/ herself if what is obtained is bad, good or very good. I promise to join the debate after reactions to this piece are known.
Meanwhile, there are three issues I like to comment on today and will do so not in any order of sequence or importance. Now, the present geographical space and size called Kogi State is the same area, which used to be known and called Kabba Province, which became defunct in 1967. The question is; why is it that reference is often made to Kabba province with a sense of nostalgia but to its Kogi State version with regret and pain? I am convinced that a realistic answer to this question will unravel the reason and causes of such pains and regrets – and I will attempt to answer the question as best as I could.
When it was Kabba Province, it was administered strictly within the principles of federalism, with the three Divisions (as they were called), i.e. Kabba, Ebira and Igala having autonomous administration, separate treasuries, police and prison services and therefore, were equal in every political sense. Thus, when they meet at Lokoja the Provincial Headquarters, they do so as friends, brothers and people of the same province who are bound together by common aspirations. They compare notes and anywhere there was spectacular progress, the other divisions take cue and a system of healthy competition was engendered. And wherever a serious adverse development took place, other Divisions took preventive actions, to stem the tide. Whenever the three Divisions met at the Regional Capital in Kaduna, they did so in the spirit of people from the same province who had interest in the progress of the area – knowing and conscious of the fact that resource allocation at the regional level were based on the correlating revenues from the various Divisions and so, allocations also would be paid into the Divisional Treasuries for appropriation.
And so, educational institutions were established in the three Divisions into which students from Divisions and infact, from many Provinces in the Region were admitted. Also in School Sports, and at regional sporting events or competition, Kabba Province was always the one to watch as they set the pace both in common entrance examinations and in sports competitions. If any Division was said to be superior, it was based on the standard assessment of the Colonial Officers and grounded on performance in service delivery, increasing revenue income and maintenance of law and order, and on no other puerile criteria.
Now as Kogi State, it is being administered as a unitary system in which resources from all sections are combined in one Treasury. The Police System is also now one and controlled not so much from the state headquarters but from the national capital. In a unitary system, it is winners-take-all, especially in the African setting, and whatever is doled out to those outside is based on how subservient they are. Any wonder that various amorphous groups are formed in the unfortunate Ebira and Kabba areas that often go to Lokoja to pay homage, obeisance and sing the praise of the Igala Lord of the Manor. These groups became handy as ready tools or thugs often used to cause trouble and deal with their own people – especially individuals who are critical of the monopolistic and imperial system of governance. In today’s Kogi State, the Igala is in majority as a single ethnic group, but they have now elevated this fact and clothed it with a lie as if they are more in numerical strength than the combination of the Okun and Ebira, and because the Igala had a headstart as the pioneer governor of the state, every known criteria of resource sharing, whether material, physical and financial allocation are skewed in favour of the Igala. In fact, it is now two-third for the Igala and one third for the rest people of the state – mark you not in productivity but in allocation, making it a compulsion for others to serve and worship them. Over the years, this oppressive and suffocating system has given birth to a sense of persecution among the Ebira and Okun people and much more, among smaller minority ethnic groups in the state; resulting in local wars with their devastating effects on the peace and economy of the rural people who were already impoverished by unfair resource allocation.
However, there is no guarantee that if the Ebira or the Okun were in the same advantage, they would do anything substantially different. This is not because they have the same sense or lack of sense of equity but because of the unitary and winners-take-all system of government. Now if the principle of majority rule is examined, it ought not to be strictly on ethnic ground, which is just one factor out of many. Majority rule means the aggregate number of voters who cast their vote based on their subscription to a doctrine, an ideology and on particular charismatic leadership of a political party. However, the way majority rule is understood and practiced in Kogi State; it translates to Igala rule and nothing more. Ideological beliefs cut across tribes, religion or denominations, and peoples of various ethnic groups buys into it and are bound together by it.
To equate majority rule to the numerical strength of one ethnic group is to give the principle the meaning it does not have, otherwise every ethnic nation becomes the slave of the ethnic group with the slimmest numerical advantage such as the Igala. And this brings us to the most important principle of self determination which is the inalienable human rights of all ethnic nationalities guaranteed by the United Nations Declarations’ on Human and Peoples Rights. If Kogi State and indeed Nigeria is to continue as a state or as a nation state, there must be a system of power devolution or self-rule by ethnic nations. In a true federal system of government and the country must do away with this Unitary System of administration. No one ethnic nation is superior to the other just because of its numerical strength, as other ethnic nations have no need of your number. Your numbers, if they are real or genuine, is valuable only to yourself as others can live their lives without your excess baggage. China’s 1 ½ billion population does not in any way diminish the freedom, power and progress of the United States of America or Russia in the United Nations. The contrasts is the Kabba Province experience – a system of federated Divisions of peoples who had mutual respect and so could share the same visions; not a Kogi State governed as a Unitary estate or kingdom of one hereditary ethnic dynasty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
